Given the way STEADY AIM is written it reads as if you can use it for any type weapon and even spell casting. I know as the DM I have final say, but I am curious as the real intent of STEADY AIM, besides improving a Rogue's Sneak Attacks, is it really meant for ranged weapons and/or spells? Reading it over and over I cannot help but picture a sniper gathering themselves mentally and physically to improve their chances of hitting their target.
3rd-level rogue feature As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn.
There is no hidden intent.
"Next Attack Roll" means "Next Attack Roll". There are no qualifiers. Sneak Attack is the obvious benefactor, and it's a class specific upgrade for True Strike, which is universally hated.
Advantage is generally pretty easy to get, and the cost of both movement and a bonus action is a steep price. "Snipers" will usually start with Advantage simply due to being Unseen Attackers. No need for this feature unless your target is already aware of your presence.
It is intended and written to work with both melee and ranged attacks so rogues can get sneak attacks more reliably (not that that was as issue as far as I know).
It is also written to work with spell attacks. Not sure if that was intended (or needed), but it is what it is and it is fine.
It is everything true strike wanted to be except you can't move (which isn't a bad trade off for an effect that is useful).
Sorry, what I meant by intent was not regarding a "hidden intent" but rather the design/purpose behind the feature and how the designers were intending the feature to work. I get that the way it is written leaves things pretty open to melee and ranged attacks including spell attacks. And I know there have been several discussions in these forums about movement and what constitutes movement with regards to this feature. I guess I am seeking some level of confirmation that as a DM I can interpret this feature to be applicable only to ranged weapons and ranged attacks, including spells, without being way off base.
You can declare the rules to be whatever you would like, but RAW and RAI seems to be pretty clear here. Melee attacks are absolutely included in this feature. "Aiming" is not specific to ranged attacks.
As an "Optional" class feature, no matter what you choose it's a win/win. The rogue is gaining something that they aren't otherwise entitled to. If you want it to only apply to ranged attacks, the player should be grateful for the free boost.
It's also very, very odd to claim that it's possible to carefully line up a ranged strike but not a melee one. Martial arts demonstrations (in the real world) frequently feature exactly such a thing.
Much of the book that shall not be named has no logical reason to exist, other than to dumb the game down. I would suggest that the designers thought, "gee, we have given something to most of the classes that make it easier to play that class, we have to do that with Rogues". That is the only reason I can see for this feature. And no, I don't use that feature with my Rogue at another DM's table, and don't allow that book at my table when I DM.
I do avoid making rule changes midstream. Thank you for reinforcing that, much appreciated.
As a follow on question for STEADY AIM... due to the movement constraints do attackers against the Rouge gain any advantages to their attacks against the Rogue? I see it as the Rogue is stuck where they are and cannot get out of the way an attack... can't use their bonus action relating to cunning action? Am I missing anything?
Well, yeah the main thing is they are stuck where they are. It doesn't impose any other penalties beyond what it says. There are some implications to having a speed of 0 however - for example if you're flying and your speed goes to 0, you immediately fall.
Honestly when the alternative for a ranged rogue is to repeatedly hide, I'd rather they just use this - not to make their job easier, but to spare the rest of the table from sitting through multiple applications of the poorly written mess that is the hiding rules.
In 5e "Movement" is specifically transit through a grid, or other map relevant space. Flailing like an inflatable noodle doesn't count. The player doesn't have "Speed Zero", but rather simply hasn't spent any of their allotted movement (or rather, alternately expended.). No penalties other than presenting a target.
Re: Speed 0
Casting Longstrider on a Whale to give it a land speed is a fun scenario.
Much of the book that shall not be named has no logical reason to exist, other than to dumb the game down. I would suggest that the designers thought, "gee, we have given something to most of the classes that make it easier to play that class, we have to do that with Rogues". That is the only reason I can see for this feature. And no, I don't use that feature with my Rogue at another DM's table, and don't allow that book at my table when I DM.
Anyone playing a Rogue without Steady Aim should be a Swashbuckler (or, if you think you can keep your owl alive, an Arcane Trickster), because it's generally impossible to trust that you have any shot of hiding under any given DM. Steady Aim makes Rogues able to use their core defining feature without being totally reliant on how their DM interprets the labyrinthine and self-contradictory and often absent rules for stealth.
The wording of "steady aim" is one of those linguistic pitfalls that 5E is so ripe with since "aiming" can mean many things. It's like with the Monk's "slow fall". A lot of people seem to think that it's "[adjective] slow [noun] fall" as in the monk actually falling slower. By the actual text and it being a reaction it makes more sense if it's "[verb] slow [noun] fall" as in the monk doing something to slow the fall once they hit the ground. Which is a thing in martial arts and sports like parkour, for example.
Back on track, if Steady aim was reserved for just ranged attacks it should have said so. You can very much aim even with a melee weapon so it makes sense in the context of a sneak attack.
"Creatures that have no form of ground-based locomotion have a walking speed of 0 feet." Even if you cast longstrider on it, the specific rule for that kind of creature would still override it, and longstrider would apply to its swimming speed only.
Where does it says that the specifics of the creature overrides the specifics of the spell? I mean, it's silly as hell and I probably wouldn't allow it (although a rolling whale is probably quite fast once it gains momentum) but in this case it's a DM's fiat.
"Creatures that have no form of ground-based locomotion have a walking speed of 0 feet." Even if you cast longstrider on it, the specific rule for that kind of creature would still override it, and longstrider would apply to its swimming speed only.
Where does it says that the specifics of the creature overrides the specifics of the spell? I mean, it's silly as hell and I probably wouldn't allow it (although a rolling whale is probably quite fast once it gains momentum) but in this case it's a DM's fiat.
Creatures and their specific properties are, in general, more specific than the general properties of a spell. I know, this is 5e and these are general guidelines, but that way of reading them seems consistent to me, and to what you could expect in terms of rulings.
Really? Why? Is there like a list of rules from most general to most specific? Which page is that on.
As for rolling whales, don't you think that the sad spectacle of beached whales (I've seen some in Australia) would occur less frequently if they actually could roll ? This is also why I'm happy that the rules point that way (at least to me).
Those whales haven't had Longstrider cast on them and would still have a land movement of 0. But the fact that whales lack the proper anatomy for land-based movement is an argument against allowing such shennanigans but now we've left the rules and gone into interpretations.
Much of the book that shall not be named has no logical reason to exist, other than to dumb the game down. I would suggest that the designers thought, "gee, we have given something to most of the classes that make it easier to play that class, we have to do that with Rogues". That is the only reason I can see for this feature. And no, I don't use that feature with my Rogue at another DM's table, and don't allow that book at my table when I DM.
Anyone playing a Rogue without Steady Aim should be a Swashbuckler (or, if you think you can keep your owl alive, an Arcane Trickster), because it's generally impossible to trust that you have any shot of hiding under any given DM. Steady Aim makes Rogues able to use their core defining feature without being totally reliant on how their DM interprets the labyrinthine and self-contradictory and often absent rules for stealth.
Not really. Stealth is an extremely uncommon way to get sneak attack. Sneak attack is incredibly easy to get: just have an ally within 5 feet of the target, and you’re good. That’s the main way to use it.
Aiming exists as a means of counteracting disadvantage that would otherwise prevent sneak attack. Making a bonus action attack with two weapon fighting or crossbow expert is going to be better than aiming unless you need to remove disadvantage.
Much of the book that shall not be named has no logical reason to exist, other than to dumb the game down. I would suggest that the designers thought, "gee, we have given something to most of the classes that make it easier to play that class, we have to do that with Rogues". That is the only reason I can see for this feature. And no, I don't use that feature with my Rogue at another DM's table, and don't allow that book at my table when I DM.
Anyone playing a Rogue without Steady Aim should be a Swashbuckler (or, if you think you can keep your owl alive, an Arcane Trickster), because it's generally impossible to trust that you have any shot of hiding under any given DM. Steady Aim makes Rogues able to use their core defining feature without being totally reliant on how their DM interprets the labyrinthine and self-contradictory and often absent rules for stealth.
Not really. Stealth is an extremely uncommon way to get sneak attack. Sneak attack is incredibly easy to get: just have an ally within 5 feet of the target, and you’re good. That’s the main way to use it.
Aiming exists as a means of counteracting disadvantage that would otherwise prevent sneak attack. Making a bonus action attack with two weapon fighting or crossbow expert is going to be better than aiming unless you need to remove disadvantage.
A very good point. Sneak attack is pretty much a given for Rogues most of the time. Claiming that Steady Aim from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is in any way a crutch or that it would make Rogues OP is just silly. It does adress the issue of sniping rather satisfactory.
"Creatures that have no form of ground-based locomotion have a walking speed of 0 feet." Even if you cast longstrider on it, the specific rule for that kind of creature would still override it, and longstrider would apply to its swimming speed only.
Where does it says that the specifics of the creature overrides the specifics of the spell? I mean, it's silly as hell and I probably wouldn't allow it (although a rolling whale is probably quite fast once it gains momentum) but in this case it's a DM's fiat.
Creatures and their specific properties are, in general, more specific than the general properties of a spell. I know, this is 5e and these are general guidelines, but that way of reading them seems consistent to me, and to what you could expect in terms of rulings.
So longstrider never works then because a creature having a specific speed is more specific than adding to a creature's speed? But then again you said longstrider would work on swimming speed. So is it only walking speed that can't be added to or a speed of 0 that can't be added to? And where is the rule that supports that claim?
In 5e "Movement" is specifically transit through a grid, or other map relevant space.
Uh, no, in 5e, movement is just changing your position in the virtual space of the game world. Maps and especially grids are totally optional and lots of people use Theater of the Mind.
My use of "map relevant space" is meant to be read as, "the movement is significant enough to be registered on a map analog, whether or not one is used". Not that a map or grid is necessary.
As in, if you took an aerial view of the scene, the movement would have to be enough to register. Nitpicking movement in increments of half-inches is a waste of time, unless it some how significantly impacts the circumstances.
This is as opposed to "flailing like an inflated noodle", which refers to arbitrary articulation within ones "occupied space".
If you prefer, we can say, "Movement is when a character's 'occupied space' changes." (Using a specific game term, since "position" can be confused with "standing", "seated", "prone", etc...)
I think I rule Steady Aim too tight as I do not allow a player to pop up out of cover (ie, hiding low behind crates that can be fired over.) as I feel that is still a form of motion using the "You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn" feature description as my guide. Again, I might be ruling too tight on this feature.
I think I rule Steady Aim too tight as I do not allow a player to pop up out of cover (ie, hiding low behind crates that can be fired over.) as I feel that is still a form of motion using the "You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn" feature description as my guide. Again, I might be ruling too tight on this feature.
No, I'm with you there. The intent is that they are using their whole turn to draw a bead on the target. You can't do that if you're popping in and out of cover.
Given the way STEADY AIM is written it reads as if you can use it for any type weapon and even spell casting. I know as the DM I have final say, but I am curious as the real intent of STEADY AIM, besides improving a Rogue's Sneak Attacks, is it really meant for ranged weapons and/or spells? Reading it over and over I cannot help but picture a sniper gathering themselves mentally and physically to improve their chances of hitting their target.
There is no hidden intent.
"Next Attack Roll" means "Next Attack Roll". There are no qualifiers. Sneak Attack is the obvious benefactor, and it's a class specific upgrade for True Strike, which is universally hated.
Advantage is generally pretty easy to get, and the cost of both movement and a bonus action is a steep price. "Snipers" will usually start with Advantage simply due to being Unseen Attackers. No need for this feature unless your target is already aware of your presence.
It is intended and written to work with both melee and ranged attacks so rogues can get sneak attacks more reliably (not that that was as issue as far as I know).
It is also written to work with spell attacks. Not sure if that was intended (or needed), but it is what it is and it is fine.
It is everything true strike wanted to be except you can't move (which isn't a bad trade off for an effect that is useful).
Sorry, what I meant by intent was not regarding a "hidden intent" but rather the design/purpose behind the feature and how the designers were intending the feature to work. I get that the way it is written leaves things pretty open to melee and ranged attacks including spell attacks. And I know there have been several discussions in these forums about movement and what constitutes movement with regards to this feature. I guess I am seeking some level of confirmation that as a DM I can interpret this feature to be applicable only to ranged weapons and ranged attacks, including spells, without being way off base.
You can declare the rules to be whatever you would like, but RAW and RAI seems to be pretty clear here. Melee attacks are absolutely included in this feature. "Aiming" is not specific to ranged attacks.
As an "Optional" class feature, no matter what you choose it's a win/win. The rogue is gaining something that they aren't otherwise entitled to. If you want it to only apply to ranged attacks, the player should be grateful for the free boost.
It's also very, very odd to claim that it's possible to carefully line up a ranged strike but not a melee one. Martial arts demonstrations (in the real world) frequently feature exactly such a thing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ozAG8t8_4M4
Much of the book that shall not be named has no logical reason to exist, other than to dumb the game down. I would suggest that the designers thought, "gee, we have given something to most of the classes that make it easier to play that class, we have to do that with Rogues". That is the only reason I can see for this feature. And no, I don't use that feature with my Rogue at another DM's table, and don't allow that book at my table when I DM.
I do avoid making rule changes midstream. Thank you for reinforcing that, much appreciated.
As a follow on question for STEADY AIM... due to the movement constraints do attackers against the Rouge gain any advantages to their attacks against the Rogue? I see it as the Rogue is stuck where they are and cannot get out of the way an attack... can't use their bonus action relating to cunning action? Am I missing anything?
Well, yeah the main thing is they are stuck where they are. It doesn't impose any other penalties beyond what it says. There are some implications to having a speed of 0 however - for example if you're flying and your speed goes to 0, you immediately fall.
Honestly when the alternative for a ranged rogue is to repeatedly hide, I'd rather they just use this - not to make their job easier, but to spare the rest of the table from sitting through multiple applications of the poorly written mess that is the hiding rules.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
In 5e "Movement" is specifically transit through a grid, or other map relevant space. Flailing like an inflatable noodle doesn't count. The player doesn't have "Speed Zero", but rather simply hasn't spent any of their allotted movement (or rather, alternately expended.). No penalties other than presenting a target.
Re: Speed 0
Casting Longstrider on a Whale to give it a land speed is a fun scenario.
Thank you all!
Appreciate the inputs, insights, feedback, comments and assist!
Anyone playing a Rogue without Steady Aim should be a Swashbuckler (or, if you think you can keep your owl alive, an Arcane Trickster), because it's generally impossible to trust that you have any shot of hiding under any given DM. Steady Aim makes Rogues able to use their core defining feature without being totally reliant on how their DM interprets the labyrinthine and self-contradictory and often absent rules for stealth.
The wording of "steady aim" is one of those linguistic pitfalls that 5E is so ripe with since "aiming" can mean many things. It's like with the Monk's "slow fall". A lot of people seem to think that it's "[adjective] slow [noun] fall" as in the monk actually falling slower. By the actual text and it being a reaction it makes more sense if it's "[verb] slow [noun] fall" as in the monk doing something to slow the fall once they hit the ground. Which is a thing in martial arts and sports like parkour, for example.
Back on track, if Steady aim was reserved for just ranged attacks it should have said so. You can very much aim even with a melee weapon so it makes sense in the context of a sneak attack.
Where does it says that the specifics of the creature overrides the specifics of the spell? I mean, it's silly as hell and I probably wouldn't allow it (although a rolling whale is probably quite fast once it gains momentum) but in this case it's a DM's fiat.
Really? Why? Is there like a list of rules from most general to most specific? Which page is that on.
Those whales haven't had Longstrider cast on them and would still have a land movement of 0. But the fact that whales lack the proper anatomy for land-based movement is an argument against allowing such shennanigans but now we've left the rules and gone into interpretations.
Not really. Stealth is an extremely uncommon way to get sneak attack. Sneak attack is incredibly easy to get: just have an ally within 5 feet of the target, and you’re good. That’s the main way to use it.
Aiming exists as a means of counteracting disadvantage that would otherwise prevent sneak attack. Making a bonus action attack with two weapon fighting or crossbow expert is going to be better than aiming unless you need to remove disadvantage.
A very good point. Sneak attack is pretty much a given for Rogues most of the time. Claiming that Steady Aim from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is in any way a crutch or that it would make Rogues OP is just silly. It does adress the issue of sniping rather satisfactory.
So longstrider never works then because a creature having a specific speed is more specific than adding to a creature's speed? But then again you said longstrider would work on swimming speed. So is it only walking speed that can't be added to or a speed of 0 that can't be added to? And where is the rule that supports that claim?
My use of "map relevant space" is meant to be read as, "the movement is significant enough to be registered on a map analog, whether or not one is used". Not that a map or grid is necessary.
As in, if you took an aerial view of the scene, the movement would have to be enough to register. Nitpicking movement in increments of half-inches is a waste of time, unless it some how significantly impacts the circumstances.
This is as opposed to "flailing like an inflated noodle", which refers to arbitrary articulation within ones "occupied space".
If you prefer, we can say, "Movement is when a character's 'occupied space' changes." (Using a specific game term, since "position" can be confused with "standing", "seated", "prone", etc...)
I think I rule Steady Aim too tight as I do not allow a player to pop up out of cover (ie, hiding low behind crates that can be fired over.) as I feel that is still a form of motion using the "You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn" feature description as my guide. Again, I might be ruling too tight on this feature.
No, I'm with you there. The intent is that they are using their whole turn to draw a bead on the target. You can't do that if you're popping in and out of cover.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm